College Football Playoff Expansion Trying to Move Up Timeline

[Steven A]

Looks like the playoff execs want to know if 12 will be the new number a year early.

 

CFP Board to Give Guidance to Commissioners to Jump-Start Expansion Talks

WWW.SI.COM

---

Mark Keenum, the chair of the CFP Board of Managers, also said that the “hope” is to have a plan in place in the next year.

 

[Steven A]

I'd like 8 teams so that no one gets a bye.

[Nevada Dawg]

I am still a big fan of the 12-team model proposed last  year for the reasons I have posted  here before. I just love the idea of having first round games played on college campuses, and the four bully boys on top will not get to  partake in this excitement by virtue  of getting a bye. Imagine a Notre Dame Oregon matchup played in Autzen or South Bend.

 

Excitement anyone?

[AnotherOD]

It likely does need to happen, and soon. I doubt overall interest in any non-college football playoff bowl game has been lower in decades, even if it still is a "Peach", "Sugar", "Fiesta" or "Rose".

 

With the NFL playoff now up to having 13 meaningful games in it's postseason, college football can't continue to have only 3 such games.

 

The shine has just worn off anything not related to the playoff; and, if people don't care much about a Cotton or Peach Bowl if it isn't part of the playoff, what is the hope for games like the Citrus, Outback, or Alamo bowls (that at one time often were compelling matchups that got eyeballs).

 

Oregon playing Oklahoma in the Alamo Bowl probably SHOULD have been a fairly interesting game, and probably would have been reasonably so -- if it had occurred 15 years ago. Instead, both head coaches, a bunch of the coaching staffs, and just about any decent draft eligible player, all took a pass on the game.

 

As well, as fans, it almost is like they are daring us to NOT pay attention when they trot out things like the "Jimmy Kimmel Bowl", "Guaranteed Rate Bowl", "Famous Potatoes Bowl", or "Duke's Mayo Bowl".

 

A 12-team playoff gets the sport back to 11 games that mean something instead of 3.

 

I'm not sure the other bowls survive, or really even badly need to (something like 82 out of 130 FBS teams went bowling last year). I think 16 still makes sense.

 

The NCAA basketball tournament allows 66 out of 358 FBS schools into the tournament, so about 18%. 16 spots out of 130 FBS football schools is 12%. That also gives you 15 games that count to build your post season around.

 

What sounds better? 42 games where 39 don't actually matter toward the championship, or only 15 games where they all matter? 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by AnotherOD

[Nevada Dawg]

I am certainly not against a 16 team playoff. Assuming there may be no on-campus games in such a scheme, it would involve 15 of the biggest existing bowl games in which every bowl  therein would mean something. 

 

There will be screams from some quarters for making kids on teams that go deep into the tourney play even more games and possibly interfere with  their schooling. And  before anyone claims these players are not real students, I can assure you that more than you might imagine do value, schooling and the value of a degree. So lengthening the season  is a consideration. 

 

Having said that, the real students I have had in classes would overwhelmingly vote, I suspect, to play another  game or  two in pursuit of a Natty.

[DanLduck]

I agree with the ACC.

 

Use the leverage of needing to decide on expanded playoff as means to solve other major issues first.

 

NIL, transfer portal, player safety, health insurance to name a few.

 

Those issues are in reality more important, but don't yield $$. Thus they are easy to postpone deciding on.

 

The playoffs will make $$, so use that leverage to force decisions on real issues. 

 

8, 12, 16, who cares. The rich will get richer no matter what.

So do what's best for everyone first.